If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Zavon

I remember being bummed out when they started spewing out that shit. I had loved that site for many years. Cracked and Fark used to be my jam 10 years ago or so.

Yeah, it's a bummer. So many talented people withering away by allowing social justice and virtue signalling to neuter and overtake their senses of humor. Need to summon redneck superman to kick some asses.

"The argument that “people now have more freedom than ever” is based on the fact that we are allowed to do almost anything we please as long as it has no practical consequences."

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by Pyrrhus

^^

I hadn't considered his argument before though, its pretty simple.

It has holes, but I loved the bluntness of the exchange.

What holes would those be? TBH he's right. Sea level rise has always been the arena of alarmists and they don't care how many times their predictions are wrong. They went right back to the same soap box with stored heat making ocean volume expand. That's why deniers pick it to hang arguments on. Easy target.

Nowadays when people start to get killed by fireballs, no one says they need to dodge the fireball anymore; they say they need to go get a fire resist ring and some ice damage so they don't have to.

Re: Humor Thread

Originally Posted by VKhaun

What holes would those be? TBH he's right. Sea level rise has always been the arena of alarmists and they don't care how many times their predictions are wrong. They went right back to the same soap box with stored heat making ocean volume expand. That's why deniers pick it to hang arguments on. Easy target.

Well the major hole is that bank executives, while they might be powerful, they aren't 'omniscient'. They -could- be hedging bets that humanity will solve the problem in one form or another, or that the data is heavily alarmist(regardless of whether it actually is or not). Essentially people are fallible and therefore claiming that a problem probably doesn't exist because some of the most powerful in finance are ignoring its potential damage to investment is fallible. Then when we're talking finance there is the whole idea of loans and revenue streams that the banks are reinvesting further to compound their profits. Money in is better than no money, even if there is a chance it goes belly up. Look at the mortgage bubble and the 'bad loans' that were being put out over the last couple decades. People knew that the debtors weren't going to be able to fully pay back these loans, but banks bet that they would pay back enough to be worth it.

Those are both as wishy washy as his assertion though, the whole debate being of conjecture.

I still like the basis of his idea though, I hadn't really thought about how investors would react to such supposed knowledge.